State of Minnesota v. Gerald Exom, A16-0397

Background

Defendant Gerald Exom was charged with criminal sexual conduct for repeatedly molesting his 16-year-old stepdaughter, E.M., between Aug. 2013 and Aug. 2014. Allegations included touching breasts/buttocks and digital penetration.
Prior to the charged incidents, suggestive messages from Exom to E.M. were discovered; Exom denied touching E.M. but admitted having "temptations."
The state also alleged prior sexual misconduct by Exom against his minor niece, T.J.; the district court preliminarily ruled that this relationship/domestic-conduct evidence could be admitted.
On the morning of jury selection, Exom requested a continuance to hire private counsel; the district court denied the request after finding appointed counsel prepared and Exom’s reason insufficient.
Parties proceeded to a stipulated-facts bench trial; the court found Exom guilty on an amended count (second-degree CSC) and sentenced him to 94 months. Exom appealed, challenging denial of the continuance and admission of the relationship evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of a last-minute continuance to obtain private counsel violated Exom’s right to counsel	State: denial appropriate because trial readiness and public interest favor proceeding	Exom: requested delay because appointed counsel was not prepared and he wanted to hire private counsel	Denial was not an abuse of discretion; request shortly before trial and unsupported reason insufficient to compel continuance
Whether district court erred by admitting evidence of alleged prior sexual misconduct with niece (relationship evidence)	State: evidence admissible under domestic/relationship-evidence statute; probative for showing how defendant treats young female relatives	Exom: probative value substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice	Admission was within the court’s discretion; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice (cautionary instruction to mitigate risk)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295, 176 N.W.2d 261 (1970) (defendant must generally accept appointed counsel; cannot obtain continuance by arbitrarily substituting counsel at trial)
Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (1983) (no constitutional right to a "meaningful relationship" with appointed counsel)
State v. Rainer, 411 N.W.2d 490 (Minn. 1987) (trial-court denial of continuance reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Worthy, 583 N.W.2d 270 (Minn. 1998) (denial of continuance days before trial not an abuse where defendant lacked good cause)
State v. Vance, 254 N.W.2d 353 (Minn. 1977) (public defender competence can negate need for continuance)
State v. Ahearn, 292 Minn. 449, 194 N.W.2d 256 (1972) (denial of continuance day before trial affirmed absent substantial basis for dissatisfaction)
State v. Huber, 275 Minn. 475, 148 N.W.2d 137 (1967) (denial of last-minute continuance affirmed where defendant had opportunity earlier to hire counsel)
State v. Matthews, 779 N.W.2d 543 (Minn. 2010) (appellate review of evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion)
State v. Amos, 658 N.W.2d 201 (Minn. 2003) (reversal requires both abuse of discretion and prejudice)
State v. Fraga, 864 N.W.2d 615 (Minn. 2015) (relationship evidence of domestic conduct against other family members admissible under statute)
State v. Barnslater, 786 N.W.2d 646 (Minn. App. 2010) (relationship evidence helps establish context and can bolster probative value)
State v. Valentine, 787 N.W.2d 630 (Minn. App. 2010) (evidence of how defendant treats family members sheds light on interactions with victim)
State v. Ware, 856 N.W.2d 719 (Minn. App. 2014) (limiting instructions reduce risk of undue weight from similar-evidence admission)